Talk:2013 New South Wales bushfires

propose merge

This article appears to substantially duplicate 2013–14 Australian bushfire season. I don't have an opinion which article is better named, but clearly one should be a redirect to the other. —EncMstr (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The bushfire season article will eventually contain articles about all fires in Australia (both major and minor). Given it is pretty early in the fire season it will be expanding as the season progresses. The 2013 NSW bushfire is certainly notable enough to warrant its own article, but the text within the 2013–14 Australian bushfire season may need to be trimmed. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure whether it was two independent efforts or something else. I just wanted everyone to know about each other. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, keep up the good work. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is also minor coverage in list format at Bushfires in Australia, which I have just updated to mention fires out of the Blue mountains area. 220 of ^Borg 03:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Munmorah State Conservation Area

The bushfires have destroyed parts of this area. Suggest an editor include on this page. I have added to the Munmorah State Conservation Area page and there is a ref there for use. 220 of ^Borg 03:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. :-) Could have done it myself but 'real life' intervened, and I only have an 8" Android tablet to use at the moment so, editing can be hard at times. :-\ 220 of ^Borg 10:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

'Buildings' destroyed

I note that the number of buildings'destroyed has reduced from 193 to 162 Per Update-fire investigation. Do we have any details why, such as double counting? 220 of ^Borg 13:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually it seems that the text, (193 is used in several places), and info-box (162) now contradict. The sources both date from the 19th, one is PDF so I am unable to read it right now to investigate. The higher figure has also been used by me at the listing table in Bushfires in Australia. May be used elsewhere too. 220 of ^Borg 20:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, big error by me. I was looking in the wrong column. The 193 related to the Springwood fire only. As of 19 October 2013 the figure of dwellings destroyed was 208, plus an additional 40 other buildings, that covered not only the Springwood fire but also Port Stephens (nil houses, but 8 other buildings), Balmoral (2 + 10), Wyong (3 + 15), Springwood (193 + 0), Lithgow (3 + 7), and Mt Victoria (7 + 0). PDF is located here and is the correct link in the infobox. Revising figures now. Rangasyd (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are only a human. ;-) Serendipitous then that when I was 'updating' Bushfires in Australia, based on the 'new' figures, I had an internet 'dropout' and the edit was lost! :-o

I can now use the above detailed info. to update any other related pages. :-D 220 of ^Borg 03:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fires merged

Current media reports are saying 2 fires have been 'merged' by backburning. FYI. 220 of ^Borg 04:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

AFP Source:http://www.afp.com/en/news/topstories/australia-merges-major-blazes-manage-infernos/ 220 of ^Borg 05:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"The decision to merge the edges of the infernos near Lithgow and Mount Victoria in the Blue Mountains is designed to destroy the land in a managed way, depriving the fires of the fuel that would otherwise have allowed them to merge uncontrolled." From above source. 220 of ^Borg 05:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I put this here as I thought it likely I'd edit conflict, but I have successfully added October 22 with details of the fire merger. 220 of ^Borg 05:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For future reference

• I'm not sure if this will be needed yet but it's worth noting here just in case. At 3:54pm on 23 October the Raymond Terrace bypass section of the Pacific Highway was blocked in both directions as the result of intense smoke from a fire on the western side of the highway blowing in an easterly direction across the highway. Traffic is being diverted through Raymond Terrace. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems this won't be needed. It was a small fire that was under control fairly quickly. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just heard on ABC news that the 'State Mine fire' did start on the defence base. 220 of ^Borg 08:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Source: http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/defence-department-admits-to-starting-state-mine-fire-around-lithgow-and-blue-mountains/story-fni0xqrb-1226745502977 220 of ^Borg 08:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Source: Military caused one fire(Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)).

Events of 23 October

Our Chronology entries for Tuesday, 22 October contain the dire forecasts for the next day, including 'The RFS Commissioner prepared the community for the day ahead by stating that "This will be as bad as it gets..." ' Well, it wasn't, and we have nothing in our chronology for that next day because, well, nothing happened. OK, fires continued, but they didn't become horribly worse. So, what do we write for the Wednesday? HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Too true that the Commissioner prepared the community for a bad situation. However, additional bushfires were ignited or became notable on 23 Oct., notably in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas; and the State Mine fire continued to burn out of control. HiLo48, using your logic that because there is no content means that nothing happened is, well, illogical. The content for 17 October in the chronology section is also blank, and that was when 190+ houses were damaged., etc. Additionally, the Springwood section needs expansion to cover the events of 16-19 October. So, please show some restraint and perhaps look at how you may be able to help. If you have a draft, and want to put it in a sandbox and invite feedback before publishing, please let me know. I'm very conscious that a vast track of this article is a result of my edits and I'd value others to contribute, especially images and where they hold local knowledge. Rangasyd (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I exaggerated a little, but the commissioner's statement was silly. I'm not a local, and I thank you for what you've added so far. Obviously something can be added for the Wednesday, and it has to address the dire warnings. Maybe the entry can begin with "Fortunately conditions weren't as bad as predicted by some..." HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thnx for your thanks. I'm currently reviewing this SMH article about what went right. Once reviewed and I look at other sources, I will add content about 23 Oct. Oh, and while YOU may believe that "the Commissioner's statement was silly," it's not up to us to interpret his comments; that's the space for others (politicians, media, etc.,). We can report only facts. For example, did the BOM get it wrong and give the Commissioner the wrong forecast, etc.,? Rangasyd (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Alleged links with climate change

I changed the heading of this section from "Climate Change Links" to "Alleged links with climate change". Although, I'm not totally happy with the section heading. Until such time as there is objective evidence that there is a link between the NSW bushfires AND climate change the use of the word alleged, or similiar, is probably appropriate. But I'm happy to seek others' input. Any thoughts? Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" is an emotional, loaded word. How about "possible"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Possible" is speculative. The section is more about the political response to the fires. Yes, even the UN is political. Does it really belong in the article without some substantial link to climate change as a cause by experts? The Heatherbrae fire, for example, had nothing to do with climate change. It was started by 2 boys and fuelled by huge pine plantations (pine trees burn really well), fanned by winds that have swept down the Hunter Valley for the last 200 million years. News reports have concentrated on the lack of back-burning for the ferocity and spread of the fires. This, coincidentally, was forced on us by those promoting global warming. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair comment. Maybe the heading should be "Political debate over the fires", although to some it's not politics, but willful ignorance of the science. Your point about arson and pine trees is valid too. I'm concerned, however, about the term back-burning. I've seen it used a few times by NSW based people to perhaps mean what Victorians call fuel reduction burns. Back-burning is done while a bushfire is burning. Fuel reduction burns are done long before. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fuel reduction burn" may be the Victorian term but other places, including NSW, use "hazard reduction burn". Back-burning is just a shortcut term that's not limited to NSW. I've seen it widely used in Qld and the NT in my times there, where it means burning the undergrowth back from potential "targets" (houses, roadsides etc). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Back-burn link is a redirect to Controlled burn, a term I'm comfortable with, and that article shows that the back-burn connection is wrong. It's important that we get this terminology right. In Controlled burn there's a section called "Back burning" that tells us "Back burning, although sometimes confused with controlled burning, is a separate practice, with a different purpose. While controlled burns are planned during times that the area is not burning in a wildfire, back burning or backfiring is done to stop a wildfire that is already in progress." HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with controlled burn or even hazard reduction burn. "Wildfire" though is not a term we generally use in Australia. Why are we allowing this to distract us from the point of the section? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I've amended mentions of control burn to point directly to back burning.

2. The Heatherbrae fire was allegedly started by two boys, aged 11 and 15. They've been charged; and not yet convicted or plead guilty. An 11-year-old is also alleged to have started another fire near Raymond Terrace. A 14-year-old boy was also charged on Monday with lighting a fire near Maitland.[1] If the charges are proven, it makes the claims of linking the fires to climate change a little spurious, in my opinion.

3. Is there consensus for use of the heading "Political debate over the fires" to replace the existing heading of "Alleged links with climate change", for the time being? Rangasyd (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

1 and 3 sound good. As for 2, I think any suggestion of a link between the fires and climate change is would be in terms of climate change increasing the destructive potential of any fires that happen to be lit, rather than actually starting fires directly. The same would go for a link with hazard reduction burns (or the lack thereof). That quibble aside, I agree it shouldn't be a major topic in the article, except as a element of the reactions to the fires (as you propose), since direct attribution of a single event to climate change is likely to be unfeasible (whether true or not). Dendrite1 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We'd need really good sources to demonstrate that climate change in any way increased the destructive potential and we're unlikely to ever get those since it's impossible to prove. I really don't see the value of the section at all but if it is retained, "Political debate over the fires" would seem to be he best heading. That said, let's look at what we have: A Greens MP (surprise, surprise) criticised the new PM about climate change. His opinion piece wasn't about these fires, so why is it even mentioned in the article? He subsequently tweeted about it on the same day (not a day later as the article said) and was widely criticised for politicising the fires. A UN official then said that there was no established link between the fires and climate change. Abbot dismisses other claims not mentioned in the article and says "fire is a part of the Australian experience", something that has been demonstrated over and over again. Now we have the inventor of the internet, former US VP and failed presidential candidate Al Gore (who is not a climate change expert, just a proponent) making comment and, for some reason, his comments are given a whole section. There is very little in this section that has anything to do with the actual fires, it's just full of political grandstanding over climate change. Really, the whole section should just be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually now I think about it a bit more the words "over the fires" seem rather redundant considering the article is explicitly about the fires. "Political debate" or maybe "Political reactions" would be fine. I think the political reaction is worth documenting, although the current state of the section is far from ideal. The first sentence regarding Bandt's opinion piece seems irrelevant and I'd agree to remove it. The first half of Gore's quote is off-topic, as is the final sentence ("Abbott was elected ...); those can probably be removed too. Most of the rest seems relevant, but it can do with some tidying up to (a) make it clear who's responding to whom and (b) change some non-neutral stuff. "Claim" and "stern rebuke" should to be changed (from the 2nd main paragraph), and all the quotes should be treated equally, rather than having some stand out while leaving others hidden in the text. Dendrite1 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole of the Bandt section should go, the Twitter section because of WP:ELPEREN. Twitter feeds that are not verified accounts are not generally regarded to be reliable sources. The Instagram pic definitely isn't because it's Instagram, uncaptioned and undated. Bandt's tweet on its own is vague and doesn't actually address the fires. It's pure political grandstanding about Abbot's climate change policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bandt's twitter account appears to be verified to me. I'd say the tweet is worth mentioning not for its own sake but as context for the reactions to it (which were directly related to the fires). These reactions should also be attributed directly (as far as I can tell, all the criticism in the sources is from Coalition MPs, conservative commentators or nobodies on social media, and unless other cases can be found, this should be made clear in the article). Dendrite1 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the account wasn't showing as verified when I posted. The problem with the tweet is that it's too vague. It says that Abbot's plan means more bushfires and more images like the one he linked to. It doesn't state that climate change was responsible for these fires, so it and the reaction really doesn't belong in the article. Once you remove the tweet the whole section falls to pieces. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I think at this stage we're just in some disagreement over the significance of the whole series of events ... since that's rather subjective I'll hold any further comment until I see what some others have to say. Dendrite1 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Current situation

Media attention has died down considerably since 24/10, but there are obviously still fires going on and it continues to be documented on the RFS site [2]. Do we need to rethink the scope of this article? -Keepdry (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Scope, in terms of what? Scope could mean timeline, area/jurisdiction, or something else, such as damage done/deaths. The infobox says the timeline is from 17/10/2013 to the present; although this is somewhat inconsistent with the lead that says the fires became notable on 13/10, 17/10 and 23/10. Otherwise, I'm generally keeping an eye on the area and developments, but nothing notable to add for the present. I'd really value contributions on Springwood where the fire did the most damage to dwellings. Rangasyd (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Significance of serving PM firefighting

An earlier editor contributed edits [3] that have since been removed [4] referencing the PM volunteering his time as a RFS firefighter. Whilst some of the edit appeared lacking a WP:NPOV, there is some significance to a serving PM fighting bushfires. It's not something most PMs would do, nor would it happen in most other countries (e.g. Obama or Cameron, Putin, etc.). Are there any thoughts about toning it down and including, or not? Rangasyd (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this really still ongoing?

I find it hard to believe that this fire has been continually burning since October 2013, it is now almost 2014.--Empire of War (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Which fire are you talking about? There are several mentioned in the article. As for the time, it's only 7 weeks and bushfires occur right throughout the summer. If you think 7 weeks is a long time, when I was in the NT I once drove 200km in a fire engine at 80kmh in December to fight a fire that had been burning since August. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Powerline cause of fire lacks attribution

There is still an ongoing damages lawsuit, which is pending the finding of an ongoing investigation into the cause of the Winmalee fire. The Police investigation has not concluded, therefore it seems wrong to attribute the cause to powerlines as this has not been determined. The cause could in fact be arson. See http://www.lithgowmercury.com.au/story/2382648/source-on-winmalee-fire-still-a-mystery/ - criten 14:45, 30 September 2014 (GMT+10)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013 New South Wales bushfires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=683
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/defence-land-where-massive-state-mine-fire-began-was-full-of-unexploded-bombs-inquiry/story-e6frg6nf-1226778618984
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021095907/http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/file_system/attachments/State08/Attachment_20131019_1D0FD239.pdf to http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/file_system/attachments/State08/Attachment_20131019_1D0FD239.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)